The real strategy behind Romney's (lying) welfare ads
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney speaks during a campaign event at Watson Truck and Supply Aug. 23, 2012, in Hobbs, N.M. / AP Photo
This column originally appeared on The New Republic's website Wednesday night.
(The New Republic) Clearly, the Romney campaign's anti-Obama welfare ads have come at a cost. Given the way they have been condemned as false by even mainstream media sources -- as Alec MacGillis pointed out yesterday, Joe Scarborough has explained that he was "stunned" by the ads' demonstrable falseness -- the Romney camp has forfeited any hope of pivoting to the "high road" in response to future Obama attacks.
But judging from the Romney campaign's relentless commitment to the welfare message (there have been multiple iterations of the ad over the past several weeks), Boston seems to believe it's working. Are they right? Certainly, the advertisements target the audience that Romney needs -- namely, white working class voters. It's harder to say whether the message will be as effective as they hope: It's been a long while since welfare's traditional ability to dredge up deep resentments has been tested on the national stage. Still, given the precariousness of Romney's position -- and, frankly, his willingness to push the envelope -- it's the smartest tactical move he's made yet.
New Obama, Romney ads: Education and welfare
Romney hits Obama on welfare, again
What substance? Campaign attacks get nastier than ever
To win the presidency, Romney will need to consolidate nearly all of the undecided, predominantly white working class voters with reservations about Obama's performance. The problem is that the Obama campaign has long possessed a strategy to block Romney's path to victory: Depict Romney as an out-of-touch plutocrat bent on annihilating the middle class. In contrast, Team Romney hasn't really crafted a specific messaging strategy built to appeal to particular demographic groups. They've seemed to believe that generic ads criticizing the president will be sufficient to persuade voters with Obama reservations to join Romney's side. For the most part, though, these ads haven't moved the needle, in part because the president is already extremely well-known.
But the ads alleging that Obama dismantled the welfare work requirement are different -- and potentially more effective. For one, they're targeted to appeal directly to white working class voters, as many others have pointed out. And unlike other attacks on Obama, the welfare advertisement introduces new information that voters probably didn't know -- which can be more effective than other ads that simply stress facts that voters already internalized. (Never mind that this information is new because it isn't true.)
Since the Romney campaign has invested heavily in these advertisements, we can assume that they test well in focus groups. The reasons aren't surprising: The attacks play on a deep sense of resentment with the benefits received by the "undeserving" poor. Some polls point toward an uptick in anti-assistance sentiment since the recession. According to relatively recent Rasmussen surveys, 71 percent say that too many people get welfare and 47 percent of adults think the government spends too much on poverty programs. Remember: These surveys were taken before the overwhelming majority of Americans have heard the accusation that Obama has gutted welfare reform. That skepticism about the deservingness of welfare recipients will likely go through the roof when voters are told (again, erroneously) that Obama scrapped the work requirement.
Prior to welfare reform, voters were wildly dissatisfied with welfare, so we know that these arguments can turn welfare into a politically toxic issue for Democrats, as it was prior to Clinton's pledge to "end welfare as we know it." If Romney's ads produce feelings anything like those that hampered Democrats in the '80s, Obama would be in big trouble, as suggested by a Rasmussen poll showing 83 percent of voters supporting welfare's work requirement.
But! Welfare has been off the national radar for nearly two decades. Two decades! Even if an ad plays on powerful underlying sentiments, is than enough to elevate an issue in the absence of sustained media attention? The advertisements provide completely new information to voters, so does that mean they have a larger impact because they're telling voters something they didn't know, or is their force blunted by the absence of external validation or sustained media coverage? The Obama campaign is also airing a response ad contesting Romney's assertions, which will likely lessen the force of Romney's attacks with Obama-leaning voters. On balance, there's no question that Romney's welfare message is much less powerful than it would be if it were accurate and consequently accompanied by news coverage. But that doesn't preclude the possibility that it could still make a bit of a splash.
The welfare advertisements represent a marked shift in Romney's strategy. Rather than reinforcing existing perceptions of Obama, the Romney campaign is trying to introduce new information about the president to critical white working class voters. Realistically, Romney's chances hinge more on building up his own image than bolstering Obama's negatives, but if the Romney campaign just doesn't possess any tools to restore their candidate's image, then an attack targeted at swing voters and drawing on powerful underlying sentiments is probably their next best option. Whether Romney's welfare angle works without sustained media attention remains to be seen.
Nate Cohn is a staff writer at The New Republic. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.
Recommended
- Top Twelve Most Patriotic Songs Ever
- Many British Muslims Put Islam First
- American dystopia more reality than fiction
- We Called It Decoration Day
- Who Lives The American Dream?
- The Decline and Fall of the American Empire
- Is 60 The New 40 Or Is 40 The New 60?
- Here's Why People Don't Buy Global Warming
This is not just a Romney position, it is a GOP position. It is proven out by the last eight years of the Bush administration.
I WILL believe Romney as wanting to support the 100%, IF he talks frankly about the Bush administration's lack of fiscal responsibility by growing the government more than any other president since Johnson. I WILL start to support his candidacy IF he addresses all the ways the GOP went the wrong direction during his eight years.
Until he addresses this with tact and competency, I will continue to believe that he is a plutocrat, not at all concerned with the 47% American victims don't pay any federal taxes. He said that with such sincerity and frankness, you know he meant it.
Its like fact mean nothing to them so they just make up lies hoping some will stick.
Romney gave more to charity than Obamas entire cabinet--thats a fact. So they attack his strength saying he doesnt care about the poor he helps and cheats. This is who you want in the WH? Liberals give NOTHING to charity--NOTHING. Study after study show even their leader give less than me and Im just middle class. Biden gave 200 bucks a year people ! Kerry put up a goose egg. Gore 137 bucks ! I mean when are you gonna stop buying these pretenders lies?
I think what it is is you NEED for the Right to be wrong--or you know you're ideology is evil. Booing God? Not even pretending anymore to have morals?
I can no other reason for people to say this disaster of a presidency is successful. Your the OJ Simpson jury. Facts dont matter. truth doesnt matter. Good people are evil. Lets see how this works out for you
Everyone (no matter what party) is so consumed with dehumanizing the other, that no one is seeing the reality of our nation becoming divided to the point of starting Civil War-Part 2. Good Job America!
Fact Check- Obama wants you guns-LIE
Fact Check- Health Care Reform will ruin America-LIE
Fact Check- Obama was not born in America- LIE
Don't forget, it was christians who said, the sun went around the earth. And killed anyone who disagreed! They have been consistently wrong since records have been kept, and guess what? They are wrong again!
GO OBAMA!!!
While all the christservatives cry!!
GO OBAMA!!!
The percentages those on welfare by race are listed below in descending order by percentage.
Black-39.8%
White-38.8%
Hispanic-15.7%
Other-3.3%
Asian-2.4%
GO OBAMA !!!
GO OBAMA !!!